VickySilver

AU58 (GEF) 1845 1/2 sov. @ 220 pounds - ebay ~4 yrs ago MS65 Gem Unc. 1841 1/2 sov @ 400 pounds - this coin with tremendous luster - ebay ~also 4 years ago.

Not to butt in but this is why the grading services such as PCGS have good value in certification.

Ugggh, only fair, but scary what it should reach given the levels reached by, well, the imposters of 1863 and 1877...OK, relax, just kidding?!?

I believe that an '82 London mint specimen in aEF (gVF?) sold for in the neighborhood of 2.8k some 4-5 years ago. My point is that such a coin should draw much more interest that a narrow date 1877 at twice the price (or even up at 6k). BTW, what grade on the upcoming Spink 1882 London piece?

I too feel genuine, but there do look to be some issues with the cheek and I think with the flash that a bit of the contacts that would downgrade it are disguised. Will have a look at my own in an hour or two...

BCC - that is a lot of excitement going on there with you. Easy, easy... That having been said, I confess to being a Vicky copper nut and especially for pennies. I have spent some money on specimens before, including "eye raising" amounts for certain coins (not without a lot of study first however). I would be much much much more impressed with big prices for a date and mintmark rarity such as the 1882 London mint penny = that coin in EF or better ought to lay absolute waste to this narrow date 77 or that 1863 penny. I am not in the least jealous of the purchaser and glad if they want to collect esoterica, especially if they are less keen on date rarities; it absolutely reminds me of the lunacy in the State over paying multiples for higher grade "condition rarities" that fit into a census set. Collecting by die state is another hot one - collect coins from the same die that show its deterioration. Mmmmmm, mmmmm, those are some interesting collections.

Yes, well the fact that ESC records die numbers as high as 262 does not mean that ALL numbers up to that have been recorded. Although I dearly love the Vicky silver series and might know a bit (except when Rob catches me out!) the collecting by die numbers has eluded my interests and can not speak as expertly as with other areas...

Hi, can you post pictures = it was my thought that die numbers were dropped prior to 1883

Excellent point there. In fact I had left that bit out about use of Maundy dies; not sure but a strong likelihood that dies were used interchangeably to some degree. I think people (including myself) were very intrigued at the low mintage of currency 3ds struck duing these years. To further support your point: I have seen 1853 Maundy sets (not proofs) go for 600-800 pounds over the last 1-2 years. Still certainly not ridiculous when compared to the "slender 3" madness on the bunhead pennies I would say, not that it excuses the 3d "controversy".

Ah yes, controversy arises again on these boards, even if of a lesser magnitude. I would beg to differ in opinion and am of the opinion that most high grade 3ds from earlier Victorian years are Maundies and that in particular 1839 through 1860 or so are VERY scarce if of currency type. The problem is that not all Maundies are prooflike, and many have been struck with cracked dies & lettering errors, etc. Also the obverses may not "match" the reverses as dies appear to have been utilised in multiple years. Some Maundies were definately struck with satiny surface dies which make them resemble currency strikes; reverse strike details and sharpness have sometimes helped to differentiate between the two. I have disagreed with the attribution of many 3ds that have been encapsulated by TPGs - third party graders - in the USA. Be highly suspect of Maundies sold as currency in the years 1839 - 1844, 1846-1848, 1851-1853 in particular as they are almost always NOT. Well, will not exhaust this but welcome any other opinions.

Cameo versus deep cameo is supposed to be an index of reflectivity of the field mirrors and not just the amount of contrast between field and device. My recollection is that it is something like 4 inches for cameo and 9 inches for deep cameo.I agree that proofs up until 1937 (excluding mattes) do not have good reflectivity and even some afterwards such as the 1951 crown. This shows a relative lack of die preparation and sadly detracts greatly from the appearance of many George V pieces.

Yes, believe Marsh passed away in '07 or so... Actually little man likes hummus (?) best of all, don' t ask. Actually a good thing because a lot of other foods can be hidden up in all that garlic...

Well, evidently salivation at that age is not a problem and he regularly gives showers to all who play with him. I wonder if an update could be done on either the half sov or sov books with perhaps a bit more commentary and perhaps graphing date versus scarcity (if not value which is such a moving target).

Well, have to take you up on that some time. Cheers! Now I need the companion as I think my son (age 16 months) ate the half sov book.

Amazon.com in the USA is selling USED COPIES for 76 USD plus shipping!

Actually there is quite a bit of confusion about slabs, and unfortunately many companies willing to give it a go. PCGS is usually thought of as a bit more reliable than the others, definately with US coins, but generally with others as well. Unfortunately they do make errors which I have seen most often in attribution but the grading is generally a bit more reproducible. CGS not too bad but have caught them out on varietal errors as well. NGC is used by many US collectors of what to them are foreign coins and has probably been the most popular on the US side of the pond. I do not think that slabbing makes high price a certainty as the slab needs to contain a rare bit or one exceptionally well preserved to bring the big price, or at least so it seems in my experience.

The coin looks to have good lustre but a bit of field chatter in the obv. fields in addition to the points already broached. May go CGS 70 or possibly 75 dep. how it looks in hand would be my guess.

Rob, amen to all you said - somewhat similar to mine (opinion) in the other aquisition post.

OK, Mat lets not go there with that infernal slender 3 penny. That is the most egregious example of exactly what you are saying. I think it makes these two halfcrowns a bargain.

I am always amused at how much angst is uncovered when this subject is broached. I do love to handle coins but they may not love me for handling them, at least as far as skin oils and secondary oxidation that ensues, etc. I will say that having a slabbed coin does give me more confidence in the coin being protected. If the grade matches my own opinion, so much the better. I would not take as gospel the TPG number thereon. I do think that the certification does provide another reference point about the coin, however. I will also say that I am grateful if some bidders will not bid on a coin if it is "entombed" in a TPG slab - maybe better opportunities for me and others.

Okay Rob, that was a smart--- comment, but do agree with you anyway! There is NO way that money should have been paid for the 1839 at least since it may well have been a circulated proof. There are a plethora of varieties and even major disagreements between experts on uncirculated specimens of this date as to whether they are currency or proof (obviously they must have reeded edge). Even circulated proofs should carry a premium but not of this magnitude; still it took at least two bidders to produce this number! IMO (in my opinion) the value should have been established on this being a circulated proof. 1841 2/6s are a bit of a dilemma as they are rather scarce, even rare, in all states of preservation - if demand ever picked up for these Vicky bits prices could accelerate through the roof. I am rather a fan of this date, might be able to locate a EF truly graded specimen if somebody had the right money though...

400, you are a tough customer. Maybe your quest for perfection will leave some more bits for the rest of us peons! I do know what you mean and do not like to have inferior coins. I have a 1919H that whilst better than EF (GEF) just does not "do it" for me, and need a finer specimen & drives me crazy every time I look at it.

How on earth did they determine that the 1839 was currency? Both prices seem high, are they real and I wonder who purchased them.

Also refresh our memories as to the putative grades on the 1839 and 1841 2/6s please.